Ask an atheist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pascal's wager assumes that the possible god rewards worship; it does not consider the possibility of a god existing who punishes belief.

Furthermore, there have been thousands upon thousands of gods invented over the millenia, and there's really no point in playing that particular lottery.


Cheetah said:
Why do you feel the need to label yourself with something that isn't?

What? :confused:

Kerozine said:
What do you put under 'religion' when you fill out census questionnaires?

Well, being 17 I haven't filled out any census yet, but on any forms that ask for that I simply put 'no affiliation' on account of there not being any other option :lol:
 
Furthermore, there have been thousands upon thousands of gods invented over the millenia, and there's really no point in playing that particular lottery.

A ticket is still better than no ticket. You'll have to find another argument.
 
I believe there is only one God, and all the other ones are man's imagination of the one God, so you are off the hook there. You cannot be an atheist to the other gods, since all that would be doing is having a different opinion than other humans. I would propose that all men who imagine their own god are just as atheist as one who claims he is an atheist. Since humanism has in modern times offered man an opportuntiy to be a-religious, why do you feel the term atheist more appropriate than humanist? To me it seems that atheist is just one who is against God, not one who declares there is no God. Wouldn't it just be more appropriate to say ask a humanist, instead of atheist? Or do you believe there may be a God, but not any of the ones mentioned above?
 
Pascals wager only accounts for cost of not believing. And it makes false assumption of not having a cost of believing. (Time, money etc)
This is my answer as well. Truronian's approach is interesting, though, never thought about it that way.
 
A ticket is still better than no ticket. You'll have to find another argument.

What if god/gods thinks/think that it's ridiculous that we humans didn't believe in the scientific laws he/they put in our world? Maybe those higher beings think don't want to be targets of worship? Not believing is also a ticket.
 
Do most atheists feel superior over religious people? (Serious question - if you're an atheist, can you honestly say you don't?)
Yes indeed I can. But I feel you asked two questions, Most atheists and individual ones.

Most atheists in fact do not frequent the intellectual masturbation in these forums. Most atheists simply never bother about it and really have no interest in seeing any difference between the religious and atheists. Whenever they get confronted by any kind of controversy, they shrug and move on with their life.

Now personally I have found that in most cases, being religious or not does not determine someone's worth. There are exceptions in both areas but they aren't determined by religious affiliation. However, and this might rub people the wrong way, but you asked, there is a subset of people who I do feel superior to. Biblical Literalists. People who actually believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth. People who think the Flood is an historical event. Job's trial really happened. These believes baffle me. But even that is a feeling of superiority in a very limited scope. If these people could have a million other characteristics and accomplishments which would make me admire them. So how can I answer "yes' to a question as general as: do you feel superior over religious people.

I'd have to seriously narrow it down to: yes, in certain ways, in certain areas I do.

But I feel the exact same way about atheists :D
To me it seems that atheist is just one who is against God, not one who declares there is no God.
That makes absolutely no sense. An atheists is someone who does not believe in God, so how can he be against something he doesn't believe in? Did you mean someone who is against the believe there is a God?

A ticket is still better than no ticket. You'll have to find another argument.
I know too little of God's characteristics I'd be placing a bet on. A bet on one of the many Gods (in terms of set of characteristics) of Christianity seems as good a bet as a bet on the God I'd imagine could exist. A god that does not require me to believe without a single scrap of evidence to show it exists. In effect I am already playing Pascal's Wager without having to play Pascal's Wager. My take on God does not require my believe in it to appease it. My take on God smiles upon me whenever I reject other people's baseless interpretations of it. He's elbowing whatever messiah he's got at his side, winking and saying: "that's my boy right there!".
 
However, and this might rub people the wrong way, but you asked, there is a subset of people who I do feel superior to. Biblical Literalists. People who actually believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth. People who think the Flood is an historical event. Job's trial really happened. These believes baffle me. But even that is a feeling of superiority in a very limited scope. If these people could have a million other characteristics and accomplishments which would make me admire them. So how can I answer "yes' to a question as general as: do you feel superior over religious people.

Bah Humbug. I feel superior to people who claim that Biblical Literalists are inferior to them :p

Serious question to any atheist, what would make you believe in God, and do you believe the existence of a God is possible?
 
Serious question to any atheist, what would make you believe in God, and do you believe the existence of a God is possible?
I can answer this. I don't know and yes, to be scientifically correct but not enough to take it into account.

Counter question, do you believe the non-existence of God to be possible?
 
Serious question to any atheist, what would make you believe in God, and do you believe the existence of a God is possible?

Do you mean 'deity' or 'the biblical God'? Your capitalization is throwing me off. I'll answer it assuming you mean just any deity.

1. :dunno: How would I know? There are billions of different possibilities out there for a supernatural being or force.

2. Of course, but there is currently no way to tell.
 
Biblically Literal Protestant Christianity

There are more absurd ones out there but I don't know anyone who practices them.
 
I can answer this. I don't know and yes, to be scientifically correct but not enough to take it into account.

So there's a very small chance of deity, in your view?

Counter question, do you believe the non-existence of God to be possible?

No.

Do you mean 'deity' or 'the biblical God'? Your capitalization is throwing me off. I'll answer it assuming you mean just any deity.

I meant ANY deity, though I'd actually rather see both answers...
1. :dunno: How would I know? There are billions of different possibilities out there for a supernatural being or force.

2. Of course, but there is currently no way to tell.

Fair enough (I could argue, but this is ASK an atheist, not ARGUE WITH an atheist...;))
 
Why are there so many evangelistic atheists? I mean it's by far most common on the internet, why do some many try to push their non-belief onto others?

With religious evangelism, at least there is a reason behind it [god(s)], but if you don't believe in a god, why do you need to convince others not to believe?
 
No... that pretty much takes the cake for absurdity.
I'm more partial to fundamentalist Calvinists in Mega-Churches.
"God wants you to be happy so he makes you rich! God wants you to be rich! You are rich because you are saved! Praise the Lord and send around the collection basket again!"
 
Serious question to any atheist, what would make you believe in God, and do you believe the existence of a God is possible?
Since you write god with a capital g, I will assume your questions are more limited than what you actually wrote, and that you're primarily concerned with belief in the Christian God. I'll try to answer for both meanings though.

First of all, the understanding of what the terms 'god' and 'God' means should be agreed upon. I found these on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia: God
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.
Wikipedia: Deity:
A deity is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god.

While we could discuss the meanings for an unlimited number of threads, I'll just go off with two examples on either extreme.

In the first case, a god could be anyone or anything who is (understood to be) immortal and who has powers beyond what a mere human has: Being able to jump 50 meters in the air for instance.

I suppose it is within the realms of the possible that such a being can exist, and for believing in it I would have to see that it is able to accomplish what it claims it can do. In this case: A scientific test where one tries to kill the being, and another scientific test to verify that it can also jump as high as it claims. Of course, I'm not sure I would find any need to worship such a being even if I believed in it, nor is it certain I would feel like actually calling it a god.

In the second case, a god like you were initially addressing, is a conscious, immortal being with a personality and absolutely unlimited powers, who has created everything except for itself, and take an interest in what even the smallest conscious being within his creation.

Is it possible that such a being exists? I don't know. The claims of what it can do are so grandiose that it should initially seem quite unlikely. But of course, one can't prove that it doesn't exist just because there is no reason to believe it exists. So I'd say I find the likelihood of such a being to exist to be as close to zero as is possible.

What would make me believe in such a being? A good question. First of all, scientific tests would still be required. But because of the unlimited things such a being claim to be able to do, it is impossible to verify all of them. At one point one would simply accept the word of the being and assume that it can in fact do all the other things it claims to be able to do. But to give you a list:
- It should first acknowledge to us that it exists, for instance by shining some huge light down on people and saying: "I am. I exist." or something like that.
- After explaining what he is and who he is, he could then start by setting everything about his religion(s) straight: Which denomination is the right one (some form of Judaism, Christianity or Islam?), and also retell the holy books and clear up and misunderstandings and contradictions. If this explanation does not coincide with scientific knowledge, explanations as to why that is should be given.
- Explain how he came into being, and most likely give us an understanding of space-time, the possible beginnings or ends of the universe and reality, and such.
- Finally, as all we have as of yet is an intangible being with lots of knowledge and claims, we must of course test the claims about his abilities:
1. Do something completely outlandish, like, turn all the iron and rocks of the earth into marshmallows in an instant and maintain the lives of all the beings on earth during the experiment. Then turn everything back again, minus the marshmallow that has now been eaten.
2. Showing that Heaven and Hell exists, and that there is a life after death.
3. Proving that he can in fact create universes by actually demonstrating that he can do so.
4. Create at least one adult human being out of nothingness, and make sure this human is ready to be a fully functional member of current society with no psychological issues from suddenly having been created.

Then I'll believe that God exists.
 
Why are there so many evangelistic atheists? I mean it's by far most common on the internet, why do some many try to push their non-belief onto others?
The Internet is a rather large place. Are you sure, if you actually tally up, that atheists and non-believers are the largest evangelistic group? I'd reckon many religions are quite well represented with evangelistic measures on the Internet as well.

With religious evangelism, at least there is a reason behind it [god(s)], but if you don't believe in a god, why do you need to convince others not to believe?
Because the vast majority of religions are full of morals, guidelines and rules for how believers should live or even how nonbelievers should be treated. When those ideas are harming me, my family, friends or my society, it becomes a problem for me. Thus, my reasoning is that if I can convince a religious person to either leave his religion, or at least take some of the ideas less fanatically, then my world becomes a bit easier to live in.

Also, I just really love to argue. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom